LOL: Ludicrous Orwellian Laureate
In what must surely be some kind of Orwellian joke, President Barack Obama has been awarded the Nobel Peace Prize. George Orwell, in his novel "1984", created a term called "Doublethink", which he defined as...
The power of holding two contradictory beliefs in one's mind simultaneously, and accepting both of them... To tell deliberate lies while genuinely believing in them, to forget any fact that has become inconvenient, and then, when it becomes necessary again, to draw it back from oblivion for just so long as it is needed, to deny the existence of objective reality and all the while to take account of the reality which one denies [emphasis added].
--George Orwell, Definition of Doublethink, 1984
This must be what happened with the awarding of a Nobel Peace Prize to President Barack Obama. The Nobel committee has chosen to award Obama -- a man who has failed to bring about peace of any kind -- with a "Peace Prize". They have given a "Peace Prize" to a man who has even failed to DO anything concrete in the quest for peace! Like the Orwellian slogans of "War is Peace", "Freedom is Slavery", and "Ignorance is Strength", the Nobel Peace Prize committee has now provided us with a new one: "Failure is Success".
The use of "Doublethink" was most assuredly in play when the Nobel committee arrived at their decision. First, they had to imagine that failure to achieve anything, or failure to even DO anything is a "prize-winning" proposition. But perhaps more importantly, they had to "forget any fact that has become inconvenient": like the fact that Obama has increased troop levels in Afghanistan -- not a very "peaceful" move. Or the fact that he has threatened to attack al-Qaeda and invade Pakistan (despite his failure to follow through on those threats). Or the fact that he is willing to walk out of Iraq according to a fixed timetable, regardless of whether or not it throws Iraq into chaos and violence. Or the fact that he is considering indefinite imprisonment for some of the Gitmo detainees -- smart perhaps, but not very appealing to groups like Human Rights Watch or the ACLU.
Then, the Nobel committee had to "deny the existence of objective reality". When the Russians invaded the country of Georgia, Obama said nothing until well after others widely condemned the move. When Iranian leaders recently stole the presidential election there, Obama said nothing. When Iranian protesters took to the streets demanding free and fair elections, Obama said nothing. When the Iranian government began a brutal crackdown on the protesters, Obama said nothing until well after others widely condemned the move.
Consider for a moment that many Nobel Peace Prize nominees are those who have put their lives in imminent danger to rescue others, or to bring about human or national independence. Irena Sendler and Mahatma Gandhi come to mind (both of whom ironically, have never received the award). Not only does Obama lack the personal courage and moral conviction of such heroes, but he seems to routinely side in favor with the oppressor versus the oppressed...
When the country of Honduras ousted their President Manuel Zelaya for attempting a power grab by changing the nation's constitution, Obama demanded Zelaya be returned to power, presumably so he could resume his implementation of a Chavez-like dictatorship. For that matter, Obama was apparently thrilled to meet with strong-man and oppressor, Hugo Chavez, who has shut down all but one opposition news outlet in Venezuela including the newspapers, radio and TV stations.
Obama finds no problem in expanding trade and improving relations with Fidel and Raul Castro, the dictatorial oppressors in Cuba. He looks forward to a meeting with Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, president of an oppressive Iranian regime. He had no problems meeting with Vladimir Putin, strong-man of an oppressive Russia who silences his critics by murdering them, and threatens his eastern European neighbors with nuclear destruction. He had no problem sending former President Bill Clinton to negotiate with North Korean dictator Kim Jung Il, while ignoring their saber rattling, nuclear program, and inhumanity that is starving its population to death.
This Nobel Laureate also favors another unimaginable form of oppression, that is, murdering the most innocent and defenseless of all human beings -- the unborn child. To make matters worse, Obama actually supports infanticide. He voted three times against legislation that would protect the lives of newborn babies that survive a botched abortion attempt. And finally, he appointed John Holdren as his science czar -- a man who does not believe that newborn babies are even human beings! The number of abortions worldwide is approximately 42 million per year, and has destroyed more human lives than Hitler, Stalin, Mao and Pol Pot combined.
Is this the image of a man of peace? Does this look like a man who deserves a "Peace Prize"? Let's summarize. Obama is a man who endorses the murder of innocent unborn and newborn babies. Is that 'peaceful'? Obama is willing to negotiate and improve relations with dictators who oppress their own people and threaten their neighbors with violence. 'Man of Peace'? Obama is willing to ignore a nation's written constitution and the rule of law in favor of a power-grabbing dictatorial wannabe. Worthy of the "Peace Prize"? Obama fails to criticize totalitarian regimes, even those that silence their critics through murder, or by imposing brutal crackdowns on their populations. Equal in stature to Irena Sendler, Mahatma Gandhi, Lech Walesa or Martin Luther King, Jr? I think not.
The Nobel committee's decision to award Barack Obama the Peace Prize is simply ludicrous. It diminishes the stature of the award to the level of meaninglessness. Their award to Al Gore and the UN IPCC in 2007 was questionable, but at least it can be argued that they DID something. They collected data, generated reports and presented fancy slide shows, albeit erroneous reports with incorrect conclusions. And it can be argued that for many who believe in such nonsense, their noble goal (no pun intended) is to "save the planet". Obama's only achievement to date has been rhetoric. Therefore, it is fair to say that the Nobel Peace Prize has become nothing more than a rhetorical award.
12 Comments:
His impersonator on SNL said it best, he got the prize for not being George Bush
Nylecoj,
Hi! Thanks for stopping by! I had lost the address to your blog and was about to send you an e-mail. (You must be telepathic.) I now have the address to your blog through your Blogger profile. I promise to stop by and comment more often...
(:D) Best regards!
My crikey Hawkeye®, you believe everything, huh? This screed of yours is so full of nonsense that neither you or I have the time or bandwidth to address them all. Unless you reeeeeally want me to...
Look, I'm not sure that giving Obama the Nobel was such a great idea either as all it has done is provide the dining room tables with some ammunition over which to hyperventilate endlessly, and I also agree with Nylecoj – he got it for not being George Bush.
However, having said that, one can understand why not being GB is enough – the Bush/Cheney cabal was a violent mob bent on world domination via the most aggressive of means possible, so when someone comes along to apply the brakes to that runaway train and head back to diplomacy, well, that in itself is an act that prevents war and so is an act of peace and a big one at that. Get it?
Cheers
Elroy
Orwell was only off by ¼ century...
'one can understand why not being GB is enough – the Bush/Cheney cabal was a violent mob bent on world domination via the most aggressive of means possible, so when someone comes along to apply the brakes to that runaway train and head back to diplomacy, well, that in itself is an act that prevents war and so is an act of peace and a big one at that. '
WOW. Talk about drinking the cool-aid... When things are MUCH worse in 3 years and a new, non-democrat president is taking office... anony will be blaming Him (or her) for what obama cooked up.
~Otter
Elroy,
You never fail to amaze and/or amuse me. You thinking brings together a wide array of elements including: paranoia, conspiracy theories, naivete, and gullibility. But I'm sure you mean well.
Get well soon...
Camo,
Well, we seem to be headed in that direction anyway.
(:X) Best regards...
Otter,
They not only drink Kool-Aid™ by the gallon, but they bathe in it too, so they can absorb it through every pore.
(:D) Best regards...
' 'WOW. Talk about drinking the cool-aid...'
That's 'Kool-Aid®', buddy – best to get insults correct. But just to accuse me of 'drinking the cool-aid[sic] is not, of itself, much of an argument, is it? What am I wrong about? That Bush/Cheney actively pursued war to make the world safe for US corporate investment? Or that Obama is starting to steer the world back to diplomacy? Please, on what subject did I ingest Nebraska's famous soft-drink powder?
'When things are MUCH worse in 3 years and a new, non-democrat president is taking office...'
Oh ho! Now here's some serious fruity concentrate consumption! Have you access to a crystal ball? Are you from the future? Or are you just making stuff up? Or repeating what others make up?
And what, exactly, will be worse? The economy? The war/wars? And who is the 'non'-democrat president who will be taking office? Palin? Limbaugh? Steele? Newt? If you know then I suggest you contact the RNC on the PDQ, because they have no idea.
'anony will be blaming Him (or her) for what obama cooked up.'
Huh? You mean like you blame Obama for Bush's incompetencies? Or like you blamed Bush's first recession on Clinton? Or Reagan's 1982 recession on Carter? Or the Great Depression on FDR?
Obama has not, as yet, cooked up that much – all he has done, much to my chagrin, is continue with the Bush/Paulson/ plan to save Wall Street, just as the GOP wanted.
On the war front, well, what do you suggest? The wars are absolutely shocking, yet what to do? Pull out now, entirely, just like that, and leave Iraq and Afghanistan blasted all to buggery? Don't the CoW™ have some responsibility to put them back together?
I have some ideas as to what to do via he economy and the wars, but you'd like them less than Obama's...
'You never fail to amaze and/or amuse me. You thinking brings together a wide array of elements including: paranoia, conspiracy theories, naivete, and gullibility. But I'm sure you mean well.'
'Paranoia, conspiracy theories, naivete, and gullibility'
In what way am I paranoid? To what conspiracy theories do I subcribe? How am I being naive and gullible here? If your comments are in relation to the Bush/Cheney war efforts, well, I suggest that it you that are exhibiting signs of paranoia, conspiracy theories, naivete, and gullibility.
Paranoia: That Saddam Hussien and the entire Muslim was/is out to get y'all.
Conspiracy theories: That Saddam had WMD (Not mention the birther nonsense and sundry other hysterical tales the dittoheads, Beckites and Hannityans have been sowing of late)
Naivete and gullibility: That you believe the US went into Iraq to 'free' the people. 'Get well soon...'
Thanks! I have just returned from a brief spell in hospital where I was treated for Pneumonia and a collapsed lung, and would you believe it? There was no waiting list!
Not only that but I was only discharged once I was properly well, my insurance didn't run out, my pre-existing condition had no bearing on my case whatsoever, the death panels failed materialize, I have not run out of lifetime benefits, my premiums won't go up and, what's worse, I have not been charged a cent! Nothing! No co-payments, no deductables, zip, niente and nada! Grrr! Stoopid socialized medicine!
Cheers
Elroy
Elroy,
You said: "In what way am I paranoid? To what conspiracy theories do I subcribe? How am I being naive and gullible here?"
Allow me to quote the source: "the Bush/Cheney cabal was a violent mob bent on world domination..."
C'mon! Who are you kidding? A "cabal"? [Noun, the artifices and intrigues of a group of persons secretly united in a plot (as to overturn a government)] They were ELECTED... not once but twice! But I guess the entire American electorate was in the secret plot, eh?
A "violent mob"? [Noun, a large and disorderly crowd.] OK, let me get this straight... two guys -- Bush and Cheney -- constitute a "mob"? I don't think so... OHH, maybe there were OTHERS in this "large and disorderly" crowd? Who were THEY pray tell?
And of course this "mob" was "disorderly", weren't they? Now that you mention it, I remember Bush and Cheney (and maybe a couple of other guys) running through the streets breaking windows and wreaking havoc on almost a daily basis. Why didn't I think of that?? Gimme a break!
And "violent" no less? This disorderly crowd of Bush and Cheney (and maybe a couple of other guys) raped and pillaged and killed and maimed as they ran through the streets in their "mob-like" similitude?
And the purpose of all this violent, mob-like behavior? ...Why, "world domination" of course. Naturally. That's just the way Ian Fleming would construct the plot. And just as this Bush-Cheney "cabal" reaches the pinnacle of power... after 8 years of plotting and planning... with "world domination" nearly in their grasp... why, they go home to Texas and Wyoming of course. Yes! A masterpiece of intrigue! I can see it all now... it's a perfect movie script!
Go back on your meds, pal.
‘Allow me to quote the source: "the Bush/Cheney cabal was a violent mob bent on world domination..." C'mon! Who are you kidding? A "cabal"? [Noun, the artifices and intrigues of a group of persons secretly united in a plot (as to overturn a government)]
Yup, that sounds about right. No theory here, they spelled it all out. PNAC, anyone? Unitary Executive?
‘They were ELECTED... not once but twice!’
Not even once.
‘But I guess the entire American electorate was in the secret plot, eh?’
No, the election was stolen from the entire American electorate. Twice.
‘A "violent mob"? [Noun, a large and disorderly crowd.] OK, let me get this straight... two guys -- Bush and Cheney -- constitute a "mob"? I don't think so... OHH, maybe there were OTHERS in this "large and disorderly" crowd? And of course this "mob" was "disorderly", weren't they? Now that you mention it, I remember Bush and Cheney (and maybe a couple of other guys) running through the streets breaking windows and wreaking havoc on almost a daily basis. Why didn't I think of that?? Gimme a break!
Now now, Mr Literal, I speak figuratively. Are the Mafia a ‘large and disorderly crowd?’ No, but they are still referred to as the ‘mob’, are they not?
‘Who were THEY pray tell?
Runmmy, Condi, Wolfowitz, Perle, Feith, Yoo, Addington, Ashcroft, Powell, Gonzales…the list goes on. Now, that sounds like a ‘mob’ to me.
‘And "violent" no less?
Most certainly.
‘This disorderly crowd of Bush and Cheney (and maybe a couple of other guys) raped and pillaged and killed and maimed as they ran through the streets in their "mob-like" similitude?’’
Via their proxies in Iraq and Afghanistan, yes.
‘And the purpose of all this violent, mob-like behavior? ...Why, "world domination" of course.’
You’ve got it! Control of Iraqi oil gives the US more leverage over China and having Iraq as a client state dependent on corporate America gives the US a second colony in the Mid-East, negating the need to rely so heavily on a destabilizing Saudi Arabia and pressure cooker that is Israel.
By the end of the 1990s, the neoconservatives were developing their grandiose theories to promote overt imperialism by the "lone superpower" -- including projection of American hegemony, preventive and preemptive unilateral military action, spreading democracy abroad at the point of a gun, obstructing the rise of any "near-peer" country or bloc of countries that might challenge U.S. military supremacy and a vision of a "democratic" Middle East that would supply us with all the oil we wanted.
A component of their grand design was a redeployment and streamlining of the military. The initial rationale was for a program of transformation that would turn the armed forces into a lighter, more agile, more high-tech military, which, it was imagined, would free up funds that could be invested in imperial policing.
The US has hundreds of permanent military bases around the world and has hundreds more in Iraq and Afghanistan, not to mention the Baghdad US Embassy which is the size of the Vatican, and who runs and builds them? Halliburton, Cheney’s crew. Conflict of interest, no?
‘Naturally. That's just the way Ian Fleming would construct the plot.’
Nah, he writes about misfits with automated island bunkers. He never thought about the US Government being captured from the inside.
‘And just as this Bush-Cheney "cabal" reaches the pinnacle of power... after 8 years of plotting and planning... with "world domination" nearly in their grasp... why, they go home to Texas and Wyoming of course. ‘
You don’t think this is over, do you? I’ll say one thing for conservatives, they know how to play the long game. Bush was a pawn who outlived his usefulness and so had to be put out to pasture, but Cheney is not necessarily finished. Obama is merely a hiccup, an opportunity to pause, consolidate, take stock and find the next ‘bot to lead the conservative movement in 2016. Palin in 2012?
Maybe. But this project has been going since 1945, so the idea that it is over is risible because it’s not about any one politician.
The important thing for Republicans is that US corporate power is undiminished. Corporations might not employ many Americans anymore, but that’s the least of their problems – so long as the profit margin is healthy, they don’t care who does the work, hence their exploitation of China, Mexico, Indonesia, India etc.
Furthermore, in a perverse way the discontent this causes at home also feeds into their agenda as the middle class gets hollowed out and starts bellowing for easy solutions and messianic leaders while scapegoating whomever is unfortunate to be in the way.
This is what happen in Italy and Germany during the ‘30s, and what is happening in the USA. Obama is not Benito Hitler, and neither is he FDR – he’s Woodrow Hoover.
Unfortunately for him, however, is that by trying to please everybody and being bipartisan he has walked into a trap – the GOP will be merciless in the 2012 and 2016 as the USA’s entire fiscal collapse and war losses will be blamed on him completely. Cue full-blown 21st Century Fascism.
‘Yes! A masterpiece of intrigue! I can see it all now... it's a perfect movie script!
Yes, it is, but it is only just over half-way through. Just wait for the finale!
Cheers
Elroy
Post a Comment
Subscribe to Post Comments [Atom]
<< Home